scholarly journals Termination of Dollateralized Obligations as an Illegal Action in Case of Bankruptcy: Problems of Criminal Law Assessment

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 434-441
Author(s):  
Tatyana Basova ◽  
Aleksey Subachev
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Insolvency Law ◽  
Bankruptcy Problems ◽  
Release Property ◽  
Privileged Status ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Illegal Action

There is a general rule according to which if the claims of some creditors on the debtor’s property are knowingly satisfied to the detriment of other creditors, it constitutes an illegal action in case of bankruptcy provided that such an action inflicted major damage. In its turn, the size of the inflicted damage coincides with the size of satisfied claims minus the share that would have been due to the creditors who satisfied their claims this way if the insolvency estate has been distributed according to the insolvency law. At the same time, the corresponding crime may be committed not only through the due performance of an obligation, but also through the termination of bail bonds on other grounds. When the authors analyze illegal actions in cases of bankruptcy committed through the provision of release property, they conclude that if the market value of the release property exceeds the size of terminated obligations by the sum equaling major damage, the actions should be classified as multiple offences under Parts 1, 2, Art. 195 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. As for the order of determining the size of damage when satisfying claims secured by the debtor’s property, the authors pay attention to the privileged status of the pledge holder: a part of proceeds from the sale of pledged property must be used to satisfy their claims on the principal plus interest. Thus, for the corresponding part of the value of the object of pledge, no damage is inflicted on other creditors in connection with satisfying the claims of the pledgee. In some circumstances, the claims of the pledge holder are satisfied by a part of the proceeds from the sale of the object of pledge designated for the satisfaction of other claims, which cannot be overlooked when determining the size of the inflicted damage. The exceptions are the cases when, as a result of satisfying the claims of the pledgee, their claims on compensating damages and (or) paying financial sanctions were also satisfied. The satisfaction of the abovementioned claims in the size equaling major damage constitutes a crime under Part 2, Art. 195 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. At the same time, if the difference between the size of pledge requirements terminated by the provision of release property, and the value of the transferred assets equals major damage, the actions must be classified as multiple offences under Parts 1, 2, Art. 195 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals Legal Analysis of Fraud in the Banking Sphere

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 80-85
Author(s):  
L.A. Petryakova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
Banking Sector ◽  
Theoretical Calculations ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Objective Side

Based on the analysis of the more frequent cases of committing fraud in the banking sector, the features of the criminal-legal characteristics of the offenses provided for by Art. 159.1 and 159.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. It was established that Articles 159.1 and 159.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation by virtue of Part 3 of Art. 17 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are special in relation to the general rule providing for liability for fraud in general, and therefore they most fully disclose by the legislator the specific and characteristic features of social relations in the banking sector, which are subject to criminal law protection. Attention is focused on those signs, the definition of which is more difficult in law enforcement. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of the direct object of fraud in the banking sector, the disclosure of the content of its objective side, including the method of committing the crime. The subjective signs of fraud in the banking sector are considered. Practical examples of bringing the perpetrators to justice for banking fraud are demonstrated. Based on the results of the study, the author of the work comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to improve legislation in this area, to strengthen the explanatory and law enforcement activities of the relevant subjects of legal relations. In addition, the analysis of judicial practice given by the author in the study emphasizes its controversial nature. In other words, the author supports the theoretical calculations with an analysis of practical features.

scholarly journals The Concept of Complicity in Corruption and Responsibility for It

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-58
Author(s):  
Vladimir Burlakov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Essential Feature ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Distinctive Features ◽  
Normative Basis ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Definition Of

When the concepts «bribery» and «corruption» are used interchangeably it blurs, voluntarily or involuntarily, the borders between these related phenomena. Corruption is a consequence of bribery, but it also has its own distinctive features. The legal definition of corruption, found in the federal law of the Russian Federation, does not include essential qualities of this phenomenon. As a consequence, the Criminal Code norms prescribing liability for bribery still remain the normative basis of liability for corruption. Thus, these two phenomena are counteracted by the same measures of criminological and criminal law prevention, and, as a consequence, such measures lose their relevance and effectiveness, at least against one of the described offences. It is necessary to determine the essential feature of corruption in order to align its public danger with liability measures aimed at fighting it. This essential feature is the self-interested abuse of authority by an official with the purpose of aiding and abetting other persons in committing crimes. On the basis of such an understanding, the author concludes that it is necessary to criminalize corruption. It is suggested that the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation should be supplemented by an Article «Complicity in Corruption». Complicity in corruption is a complex crime that encompasses the situations when officials take bribes for using their authority to assist another person of persons in committing a crime. The proposed Article should determine liability for two types of complicity in corruption that differ in their degree of public danger: aiding and abetting corruption, when an official receives bribes and uses his authority to provide assistance to another person or people in committing a crime, and corrupt collusion, when an official receives bribes and uses his authority to provide assistance to an organized group or a criminal community in committing crimes on a permanent basis. The author analyzes the advantages of this Article in comparison with the Articles used today for qualifying corruption and shows the difference between the crime of complicity in corruption and similar crimes, specifically, those included in Part 3 of Art. 210 («Participation in a Criminal Community»).

scholarly journals A New Kind of Exemption from Criminal Responsibility: the Theoretical, Legislative and Enforcement Aspects

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 158-166
Author(s):  
N A Egorova
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Difference

Questions about the place of norms about exemption from criminal responsibility with the appointment of a judicial fine in the system of criminal law institutions, the difference of judicial fine from other criminal law measures, the grounds for exemption from criminal responsibility under article 76.2 of the Criminal code, and the appointment of a judicial fine are considered. It is stated that the basis of a judicial fine may only be established by court fact of the crime of a certain category, therefore it is difficult to explain the appointment of this measure to a person suspected of committing a crime; the purpose of restoring social justice when releasing from criminal responsibility with the appointment of a judicial fine is not achieved. A critical analysis of the resolution of Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation from June 27, 2013 No. 19 «About application by courts of the legislation regulating the grounds and procedure of exemption from criminal responsibility» (new edition) in the explanation concerning the mentioned exemption from criminal responsibility is done. It is concluded that the appearance of the considered norms in the Russian criminal law reflects not only the search of more flexible methods of criminal law impact and new criminal law measures, but also about the failure of the state and society in solving the problem of crime prevention. Legal regulation of judicial fine in the future should be more detailed, the scope of application of article 76.2 of the Criminal code is narrower, and the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation should pay more attention to the interpretation of article 76.2, 104.4 and 104.5 of the Criminal code.

CODIFICATION PROBLEMS OF NECESSARY DEFENSE AFFECTING ITS IMPLEMENTATION

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 155-163
Author(s):  
PETRUSHENKOV ALEXANDR ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Educational Institutions ◽  
Scientific Article ◽  
Teaching Staff ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Special Part ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Legislative Activities

Objectives. The goal of scholarly research is to develop proposals for amendments in criminal law General and Special part of Criminal code of the Russian Federation governing self-defense. The scientific article identifies legislative gaps and contradictions that hinder the effective implementation of the necessary defense and require prompt solutions. Methods. The article analyzes such concepts as “self-defense”, “public assault”, “excess of limits of necessary defense”, “violation of the conditions of lawfulness of necessary defense”, “surprise assault”, “rights defending or other persons, interests of the state”. The use of logical and comparative legal methods allowed us to develop proposals for making changes to the criminal law norms that establish the necessary defense. Conclusions. The article shows the conflicts and gaps legislative recognition of self-defense and, in this regard, the complexity of its implementation in the articles of the Special part of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation and practical application. Changes are proposed to the criminal law norms regulating the necessary defense, both in the General and in the Special part of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation. Sense. The content of the scientific article can be used by the teaching staff of higher educational institutions when teaching the course “Criminal law”. The results of the work can be useful to persons who carry out legislative activities in the field of criminal law. The leitmotif of the article can be used in the preparation of dissertation research.

The main problems of operational-search counteraction to bribery in Russia (based on the example of the practice materials in the Komi Republic)

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (1) ◽  
pp. 151-157
Author(s):  
Vladimir Danko
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Practical Experience ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Komi Republic ◽  
Legal Problems ◽  
Subject And Object ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Object Of Crime

The work is carried out on the basis of special methods of knowledge, including historical-legal, logical, formal-legal. In the article, taking into account scientific sources and practical experience, the legal problems of operative-search counteraction to crimes provided for in Article 290-291.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are considered. The analysis of bribery is realized jointly, because there are identical characteristics in all its corpus delicties – the same subject and object of crime. The existing norms of criminal and criminal procedure laws in relation to bribery are analyzed. Principal operative-search measures used in documentation of bribery are determined. They are surveillance and operational experiment. Their difference is justified and successful use examples are examined. An actual statistics of the Komi Republic for 2015-2018 is given. The lack of normative securing for interaction between operational subdivisions and preliminary investigation body is ascertained. Based on personal practical experience some measures to counteract bribery are proposed.

The use of mass media and information and telecommunication networks as an evidence of offences punished for illegal trafficking of items and materials

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (4) ◽  
pp. 80-88
Author(s):  
Andrey Antipov
Keyword(s):  
Mass Media ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Telecommunication Networks ◽  
Russian Society ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Illicit Trafficking ◽  
Special Control ◽  
Comprehensive Study

In This paper is dedicated to the examination of one of the most relevant and significant problems of Russian society – illegal trafficking of items and materials, carried out using mass media andinformation and telecommunication networks. Top officials of the state raise the issue of the importance of special control in this area by law enforcement agencies. Despite this attention, comprehensive study on the criminal-legal significance of the use of mass media and information and telecommunication networks in illegal trafficking has not been yet undertaken in the frame of criminal law of Russia. The author examines the concept of «illegal traffic», analyses the texts of the articles of the criminal code of the Russian Federation, which explicitly criminalize illicit trafficking. The author makes a conclusion about the reasonableness of making changes to certain articles of the criminal code of the Russian Federation, in regard to the part concerning establishing stricter penalties for committing socially dangerous acts using mass media and information and telecommunication networks.

Types of Criminal Acts

2021 ◽  
pp. 255-260
Author(s):  
Alexander V. Shesler ◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Essential Feature ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Forced Labor ◽  
Drug Addicts ◽  
Federal Republic Of Germany ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
A Minor

The article examines criminal acts, with which the law associates certain criminal legal consequences. The aim of the article is to substantiate the identification of various criminal acts and show their specificity in comparison with crimes. The research is based on the domestic criminal legislation, materials of judicial practice and the legislation of the Federal Republic of Germany. The research methods are: the method of comparative law, which allowed comparing the provisions about criminal offenses in the 1960 Criminal Code of the RSFSR and in the 1996 Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Code of Germany; the method of document analysis, which made it possible to analyze the judicial practice and proposals of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the introduction of provisions on criminal offences in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; the formal-logical method that made it possible to analyze the content of the norms of the Criminal Code about criminal acts. The article concludes that, in addition to crimes, criminal acts should include: a criminal offence, which entails criminal liability in the form of replacing punishment with a more severe one (fine, compulsory labor, correctional labor, restriction of freedom as the main type of punishment, forced labor) or criminal liability in the form of the cancellation of any type of probation (suspended sentence, parole, deferred sentence, deferred sentence for drug addicts); a minor act; socially dangerous behavior of persons who are not subjects of a crime due to their minor age or insanity; innocent infliction of harm. The article shows the specificity of a misdemeanour, consisting in the fact that this act is not socially dangerous, does not contain signs of a crime, violates the liability of the convicted person to be subject to limitations arising from the court-appointed punishment or type of probation (suspended sentence, parole, deferred sentence, deferred sentence for drug addicts). It is substantiated that a minor act should be referred to circumstances that exclude the criminality of an act due to the absence of public danger, an essential feature of a crime. It is argued that acts, provided for by the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, committed in a state of insanity and entailing compulsory medical measures, should not be subject to criminal law. The article criticizes the judicial practice of a broad interpretation of the commission of a crime by a group of persons, according to which it is not only a co-execution, but also any execution of the objective side of the crime by several persons, of which only one can be the perpetrator. It is argued that causing harm due to the non-compliance of the psychophysiological qualities of a person with the requirements of an extreme situation does not apply to innocent infliction of harm.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document